Software-only OVERCLOCK for LC475, LC575, Quadra 605

[JDW]

I don't believe anyone is complaining about 24-bit addressing mode lacking the overclock. People who haven't tried it yet are just curious. And that's why I strongly encourage everyone to give it a try to see how great it is. And while Mustermann did kick off the project, you brought it to full completion, @phipli. Without your incredible work on the software, most people wouldn't be able to enjoy it at all.

So when people ask, I answer in a matter-of-fact way. It's a fact the overclock doesn't work in 24-bit mode. The reason is nice to know, I guess, but it doesn't really matter. For as you just said, the only thing that really NEEDS 24-bit mode is the IIe Card, and most people don't have one of those. System 6 also needs it, but I can't run System 6 on my LC575 board. Not sure about the 475, but even if you could run System 6, it's written in assembly language and flies even on processors with low clock speeds. Besides, a lot of the games you'd want to run with a very high clock speed only work on System 7 anyway, and they need RAM too, so you'd want 32-bit addressing ON for them.

But in terms of compensation, I do apologize for my oversight...

Folks, you can Donate to @phipli via his website here:

Donate

If you wish to show your appreciation for anything on this website, a donation towards the running costs would be hugely appreciated. Feel free to use the feedback field in the donation process to …

elephantandchicken.co.uk

I donated just now. And I don't say that to seek praise. I'm happy to support your work and hope my donation will inspire others to respond in kind.

 

[phipli]

I don't believe anyone is complaining about 24-bit addressing mode lacking the overclock.

I donated just now. And I don't say that to seek praise. I'm happy to support your work and hope my donation will inspire others to respond in kind.

Yes, sorry, I was just trying to explain that there are diminishing returns on the investment of time, I wasn't begrudging it, but there gets a point where the benefits are so small that it isn't worth the time it takes (which would likely be much less time for someone else, but this sort of thing isn't my bread and butter). Thank you for your generosity, I'm not looking for payment, nobody should feel obliged, there is a significant reward in seeing people getting use out of it as is.

Generally I recommend using the Control Strip module, it gives instant speed changes and is more readily on hand. It makes changing speed a bit more like changing monitor bit depth.

The reason the spicy o'clock benchmarks faster in RAM, ROM and VRAM (which shows up especially in the video benchmarks) is that it keeps the default timings your computer is set to (for most of us, that means 33MHz timings). This means you're pushing stock hardware harder. The software overclock has been designed to give more of an official, released machine, style experience - it aims to adjust timings to keep them in specification for the LC 475 hardware timings as much as possible - i.e. for RAM ROM and VRAM. This should mean it is compatible with more machines. With this in mind, the LC 475 set to 40MHz scores almost identically to the Quadra 840av in CPU performance - the only official 40MHz Quadra Apple released.

With regards to using the Advanced settings, I'd say "your mileage may vary". By changing those settings, most users would be pushing their hardware outside of the specification. Good if you've replaced the soldered RAM and fitted fast VRAM and ROM, but likely to cause instability for those of us that have soldered 80ns RAM and less than stellar VRAM.

The default settings do unfortunately target the LC 475 as I don't have a 575 and actually didn't originally realise they were 33MHz or that they had 70ns soldered RAM - I'm not overly familiar with the AIO scene - my SE/30 is my newest non-iMac AIO.

 

[JDW]

I don't have a 575 and actually didn't originally realise they were 33MHz or that they had 70ns soldered RAM

I have the opportunity to purchase some OKI brand 60ns rated MSM514400D-60SJ RAM chips that would allow me to desolder my 70ns KM44C1000BJ-7 chips and do a swap. Not being sure if a mere 10ns of faster speed would really matter, I sent Mustermann a PM to gather his thoughts. If he feels it's probably not worth it, I won't bother. There's always a risk of damaging something when you desoldering that many chips using hot air, but I suppose there is something to be said about taking the risk "for science." Goodness knows I did that when I desoldered an EEPROM on my rare 10MB MMI drive in my HyperDrive Mac in order to help out a fellow community member repair his non-functioning drive. Sometimes you just have to boldly go where no man has gone before! And that's precisely what you did with your work on Soft 475 Overclock, so thanks again!

 

[phipli]

I have the opportunity to purchase some OKI brand 60ns rated MSM514400D-60SJ RAM chips that would allow me to desolder my 70ns KM44C1000BJ-7 chips and do a swap. Not being sure if a mere 10ns of faster speed would really matter, I sent Mustermann a PM to gather his thoughts. If he feels it's probably not worth it, I won't bother. There's always a risk of damaging something when you desoldering that many chips using hot air, but I suppose there is something to be said about taking the risk "for science." Goodness knows I did that when I desoldered an EEPROM on my rare 10MB MMI drive in my HyperDrive Mac in order to help out a fellow community member repair his non-functioning drive. Sometimes you just have to boldly go where no man has gone before! And that's precisely what you did with your work on Soft 475 Overclock, so thanks again!

I'd recommend just desoldering what is there rather than putting faster RAM back. But you still have the risk of melting some of the plastic in the surrounding area.

I desoldered the onboard on my Centris / Quadra 610 and on one of my 650s. I probably will on my 475 at some point. I'd like to get to the point that I have a fast ROM, fast VRAM and fast RAM just to see where the limits are.

Do you have a fast ROM in yours?

 

[JDW]

Do you have a fast ROM in yours?

The stock 575 boards don't have a ROM socket, but the good news is you can solder one in because the pads are there! So I did. And I did that because I received a compatible ROM SIMM designed by @Jockelill , which is rated for 55ns. It has some quirks in that I can't seem to boot from it, but I did confirm it kills the RAM checking at cold boot. Even so, the RAM checks normally finish before the CRT lights up anyway, so that doesn't matter so much. It's mainly to get a faster access time than the soldered ROM.

 

[phipli]

Even so, the RAM checks normally finish before the CRT lights up anyway, so that doesn't matter so much. It's mainly to get a faster access time than the soldered ROM.

That is actually something to keep in mind actually - I've found that my Centris 650 wont run at 40MHz if I use my 60ns 128MB SIMMs at all. With other (smaller) SIMMs, I can get 50MHz.

It is always worth trying a few different SIMM, although the limit you (JDW) specifically are hitting doesn't sound like what I've seen as RAM limits. When my RAM isn't fast enough I tend to have sad mac (way too slow), freeze just before the first extension loads, or random freezes (including ones where the mouse keeps going but nothing responds). Also worth noting that some of my 70ns SIMMs are happy to run faster than my 60ns SIMMs, and my single 50ns 72pin SIMM actually isn't any faster than the best of my 60ns SIMMs. I've heard that timings are tighter on EDO SIMMs, so while macs don't need EDO (and some aren't compatible with them (although the 475 and 575 are)), it might be a small advantage.

But more generally, what I mean is, if someone is seeing those sort of symptoms, try a different RAM SIMM.

 

[phipli]

Updated version of the Control Strip Module available here :

https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/control-strip-475-overclock

Most changes (other than the typo I'd made in the menu) are in the background, but this new version seems to be more stable at higher speeds due to refined timings.

I've added a couple more speeds to the menu for people that want to live on the edge.

I've made it use different timings for computers that shipped fitted with 70ns RAM.

One impact of the changes is that if you run it on an LC 575 at 40MHz, the CPU score now exceeds the Quadra 840av by a small amount.

 

[phipli]

Sad news.

Based on the fact that the Performa 630 is a derivative of the LC 475, and its memory controller, the F108 is apparently based on the MEMCjr... plus it uses resistors to set the clock speed as on the LC 475 using a clock generator of the same brand... sounds hopeful...

I made a special test version of the software overclocking software. Because I knew that the video subsystem was very different, I made multiple options that variously ONLY changed the clock speed by overriding the strap resistors, others that didn't change video settings, and lastly left the normal options in the list as well. I then made sure the software functioned as expected on my LC 475 (it did)... and moved it onto my fairly stock Performa 630...

Sadly running it just triggers a Type 1 error and the speed doesn't change. Looks like Apple removed the ability to program the clock from the memory controller, or possibly moved the registers around. If it is the latter, we're stuck unless someone is able to get a copy of the F108 ERS document, or has other document describing the F108 registers.

A real shame, because this would have opened up software overclocks for the 630, 580, 6200, 5200, 6300, 6300 and related machines.

I also checked out the ERS for the memory controller on the LC III, and the register that sets the speed is listed as Read Only, which doesn't sound promising. This means software overclocks aren't happening wrt the LC III, IIvi, IIvx or P600. The chip only seems to support 16, 25 and 33MHz anyway, so the LC III+ mod is still the best solution for this. (Mods to the IIvx family machines are way more complex as you have to add in the whole clock doubler circuit to convert a IIvi to a P600, and the cache circuit to convert to a IIvx).

Off topic - the IIvx isn't as bad as people remember - yes it was too expensive and replaced by the cheaper and way, way better Centris 650 a few months later... but it actually benchmarks slightly ahead of a IIci stock, and the QuickDraw performance is better than a IIci, and it even supports Thousands of colours with a VRAM upgrade. As a retro computer, they're a good alternative to a IIci. The slower bus means that if you upgrade them with processor accelerator card you wont quite get the same performance as with the same upgrade in a IIci, that is the only real disadvantage (because lets be honest, you don't need 128MB of RAM).

If you have a IIvx/IIvi/P600 schematic, I'd be really interested btw. I'd love to see if it is possible to bump the bus to 25MHz or 33MHz (I suspect it wouldn't run).